BASANAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No.237/2014 pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, for the offence punishable under Sections 341 , 324 , 307 , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ' IPC ') and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989, have sought for quashing of the entire proceedings in the said criminal case.

(2.) The summary of the charge sheet allegations filed by the respondent-police is that the complainant and his brother, who is CW-8, belong to schedule tribe. The accused belong to lingayat caste. The complainant had entered into an agreement for the purchase of 4 acres of land in Bommanal village from one Sri. Prakash Kittur. The said negotiations had taken place in the middlemanship of accused No.1. In that regard, amount was also paid and an agreement for sale was also entered into. However, the vendor neither delivered the possession of the land nor refunded the advance amount. The complainant was asking the accused either to get the land delivered to him or the advance amount be refunded to him. Due to repeated asking by the complainant in this regard, the accused were annoyed with him. That being the case, on 14.06.2014 at about 9'O clock when the complainant along with CWs.8 and 9 were coming on a motorcycle on kachcha road leading from Salagar to Madabavi, both the accused (petitioners herein) going there in their Bolero motor vehicle bearing registration No.KA.23.N.1130, wrongfully restrained the complainant and other pillion riders on the motorcycle. Knowing fully well that the complainant belongs to schedule tribe, both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention abused the complainant in filthy language taking the name of his caste and also objected for the complainant repeatedly asking them either to get the land delivered to them or the amount refunded, with an intention to kill them, joined by accused No.2 assaulted the complainant on his head with the iron long. At the same time, accused No.2 also assaulted on the back of CW-8 with a stone and as such the accused attempted to cause the death of the complainant and his accomplice. With these allegations, the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 , 324 , 341 , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and (2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act was filed against them.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that much prior to the alleged date of incident in civil suit filed by the complainant against the alleged vendor, a compromise was entered into, as such, the suit with respect to the alleged transaction of the landed property has ended in a compromise. That being the case, the question of the complainant asking the accused for the refund of the money or possession of the land or committing any alleged offence by the accused against the complainant, does not arise. With these, he submits that the complaint is a misconceived complaint only to harass the accused.